To protect the social purpose of insurance, exclusion clauses should be construed narrowly and in accordance with the doctrine of contra proferentem. Relying on exclusion clauses to repudiate claims contradicts the statutory intent of indemnity. This principle was relied in the Supreme Court Rita Devi judgement while distinguishing between murder simpliciter and accidental murder. All that a stranger's criminal state of mind overrides the contractual rights of an innocent family subverts the purpose of insurance. A shift is essential from a perpetrator-centric understanding of accidental death to a victim-centric approach.